How Cognitive Dissonance and Social Priming Influenced the 2020 Election

Social Psychology in the News: Social Psychology Concepts
Today, the world in general and the United States in particular are troubled places, with multiple crises confronting political leaders and citizens at every level, including most especially the ongoing Covid-19 virus pandemic, a weakened national economy, racial unrest and increasing polarization of the American electorate following the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. This dramatic polarization has been more severe than at any time in the nation’s history with the exception of the Civil War, and this process continues even after the results of the presidential election were called by the mainstream media. This situation is due in large part to the cognitive dissonance that losing voters experienced and the manner in which voters were socially primed for this historic electoral confrontation. The purpose of this paper is to provide a review and analysis to define and describe how these two social psychology concepts have been reflected in the news in recent weeks, followed by a summary of the research and important findings concerning cognitive dissonance and social priming in the paper’s conclusion.
Cognitive dissonance: How cognitive dissonance affects losing voters
Identification and definition of the concept:
In general, cognitive dissonance occurs when people are confronted with events that challenge their long-held beliefs and views about the world around them. In many cases, people simply ignore or discount anomalous events as being isolated incidents which are irrelevant to their worldviews. This process plays out unconsciously and operates to help people navigate their way through life while providing the basis for informed decision making. Even when the evidence mounts beyond refutation, some people may resist integrating this new information into their thinking since it means that they have been fundamentally wrong about something important to them all along. This tendency means that many voters tend to remain loyal to the same political party all their lives unless and until something sufficient dramatic occurs that compels them to reconsider their choices (Bølstad et al., 2013).
Indeed, a growing body of evidence supports the concept of cognitive dissonance which indicates that maintaining a stable, positive self-image is among the most influential determinants of human behavior (Aronson et al., 2019). In many ways, the concept of cognitive dissonance just makes common sense. After all, the world is frequently a confusing and dangerous place, and people must have some mental schema available to help them quickly respond to new threats and opportunities without having to mentally calculate all of the possible antecedents.
Although an infinite number of factors can cause cognitive dissonance, those that place individual self-esteem and self-worth in question are among the most powerful influences on subsequent behaviors (Aronson et al., 2019). Even then many people are reluctant to completely abandon the worldview that has been forged over a lifetime, but the fact that many die-hard Republicans “held their nose” and voted for the Democratic Party confirms the results of a study by McGregor (2013) that certain behaviors such as the act of voting can induce radical changes in thinking that can help reduce the negative effects of cognitive dissonance by aligning individual thought processes with reality.
How the concept is demonstrated in the media:
At present, despite overwhelmingly compelling evidence to the contrary, tens of thousands of Americans (“millions” according to White House accounts) are taking to the streets across the nation to protest the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election because they are unable or unwilling to accept the election results, preferring instead to attribute their loss to nebulous and nefarious sources. Because voters’ sense of self-esteem and self-worth are closely linked with the perceived validity of their political views and preferences of candidates, election losses – especially major losses such as the 2020 presidential toss-up – can represent major threats to these powerful self conceptions.
Indeed, the profound sense of cognitive dissonance that was generated in response to President Trump’s loss by these voters demonstrates just how fragile the human psyche is when it comes to what are regarded as challenges to the important issues in their lives. For instance, a recent news report from The Guardian observed that on November 14, 2020,”[A] dozen black shiny vehicles with flashing blue and red lights were greeted by a sight seldom seen in Washington, a Democratic bastion: hundreds of Trump supporters, cheering and clapping, whistling and whooping, punching the air and hailing their idol as if he had in fact won a glorious victory over Joe Biden” (Smith, 2020, para. 3).
Likewise, other recent media reports also highlight the cognitive dissonance that is being experienced by Trump supporters, including the following representative headlines:
· “'It's not over': Trump supporters protest Biden victory in swing states” (The Guardian, November 7, 2020).
· “Million MAGA March: Trump fans rage against dying of the light” (The New York Times, November 14, 2020);
· “Anxious. Unsatisfied. Surprised. How voters in America’s most divided states feel after the election” (The New York Times, November 15, 2020).
· “Violent clashes in DC after 'Million MAGA March' protest” (Yahoo!, November 15, 2020);
As can be seen from the foregoing headlines, the severity of the cognitive dissonance on the part of Trump supporters began immediately after Biden’s election and has continued to intensity in the days since. Moreover, the fact that the vast majority of these protestors refuse to wear masks during a global pandemic further underscores the extent to which they have bought into the outgoing president’s egregiously politicized and false claims about the Covid-19 pandemic.
It is reasonable to posit that a common theme running through the minds of Trump supporters at present is that they cannot have been so wrong for so long about so many things, so others must be responsible for their cognitive dissonance. Ultimately, however, it is also reasonable to suggest that a majority of the dissonant cognitions that are being experienced by Trump supporters at present will subside, and many will either change their behaviors and cognitions or add new cognitions to their mental schema as a result (Aronson et al., 2019). Most political analysts agree, though, that the outgoing president is not suffering from cognitive dissonance concerning his loss to President-Elect Joe Biden, but is rather fueling these doubts in the minds of his supporters in order to mobilize his base long enough to continue raising money for his post-White House career plans, a process that also involved yet another social psychology construct, social priming, which is discussed below.
How politicians use social priming to persuade voters
Identification and definition of the concept:
Social priming describes the process whereby the subconscious and subsequent behaviors can be heavily influenced by otherwise subtle messages (Aronson et al., 2019). In the past, this concept was largely subsumed with various types of subliminal messaging, but the current conceptualization reflects the other applications besides marketing where social priming can be used to good effect. In the context of the recent presidential election, social priming exploits the cognitive dissonance that voters experienced when their candidate lost by providing them with an alternative scenario in which their long-held beliefs and values are reinforced. In other words, President Trump used social priming to convince nearly half of the American electorate that either he would be the successful candidate or the election was rigged because there could not be any other possible alternatives.
How the concept is demonstrated in the media:
Despite the “in your face” quality of the president’s false assertions about his election loss, Trump cultists hang on to any thread of hope that their candidate actually won because, well, he said he was going to and no other legitimate outcome was conceivable. The effects of this type of social priming can be readily identified in mainstream media headlines such as the following:
· “'Rigged election': Donald Trump's long history of polls fraud claims” (Economic Times, November 5, 2020).
· “Misinformation by a thousand cuts: Varied rigged election claims circulate” (NBC News, November 13, 2020).
· “In Torrent of Falsehoods, Trump Claims Election Is Being Stolen” (The New York Times, November 15, 2020).
Indeed, there have been dozens more headlines that mirror the above entries which clearly reflect President Trump’s attempts to “set the stage” for his contesting a potential loss by dropping first subtle hints that the election would be rigged and then escalating his rhetoric to condemn the entire electoral process. In sum, a large segment of the American electorate has been socially primed to reject the results of a legitimate election through the social priming cues relentlessly delivered by President Trump over the past several months.
Conclusion
Social psychologists have their hands full at present trying to make sense of the political shenanigans that are roiling the nation, but the research was consistent in showing that both the concepts of cognitive dissonance and social priming have emerged as two important constructs that have played a role in the pre- and post- presidential election outcomes. Today, Americans are fighting each other in the streets because Trump supporters cannot believe they lost due in large part to the social priming propaganda campaign that was been waged by the White House in the months leading up to the November 3 election. In the final analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that these events and behaviors will wend their way into forthcoming editions of social psychology textbooks because they represent classic instances of these two concepts.
References
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Sommers, S. R. (2019). Social psychology (10th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Bølstad, J. et al. (2013). Tactical voting and party preferences: A test of cognitive dissonance theory. Political Behavior, 35, 429-452.
McGregor, R. M. (2013, June). Cognitive dissonance and political attitudes: The case of Canada. The Social Science Journal, 50(2), 168-176.
Smith, D. (2020, November 14). Driving Mr. Donald: White House excursion reveals a president pushing up daisies. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/14/donald-trump-motorcade-washington-march-protest-golf.